THE IMPACT OF INTERCULTURAL FACTORS ON THE PLANNING OF THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC By JONATHAN S. PENLAND (Under the Direction of Ronald M. Cervero) ABSTRACT Western theological educators participate in the planning of theological education programs for rapidly growing churches in postcolonial societies like the Dominican Republic. Their work can be self-defeating unless they understand the intercultural factors produced by their placement within a postcolonial context. This critical ethnographic case study examined how intercultural factors shaped the planning of the theological education program of the Dominican Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA). Twenty-one participants were selected as a purposive sample. Each participant was interviewed using the Critical Incident Technique. In this study, a critical incident was defined as a key decision that changed the direction and development of the theological education program. Interviews lasted approximately an hour and were audio-taped, transcribed, and reviewed by the participants. The constant comparative method of data analysis was used during the 16 months of the study. The 21 participants mentioned 43 critical incidents. Data analysis identified five interrelated intercultural factors that impacted the planning of the theological education program in five distinct ways. The first factor was Dominican hybridity and collectivity versus American individuality. The second was Dominican extensive power distance orientation versus American compressed power distance orientation. The third was Dominican preference for consensus versus American top-down management. The fourth was Dominican acquiescence to American control versus American organizational loyalty. The fifth was Dominican racial and gender inequality versus American racial and gender equality. These five intercultural factors impacted the theological education program by producing communication difficulties, blurring lines of authority, leaving organizational cross-purposes undetected, encouraging unilateral decision- making, and marginalizing the rural poor. Three conclusions were drawn from this study. The first conclusion was that frame factors limited collaborative planning to the resolution of substantive issues and left key meta- issues unresolved. The second conclusion was that subordinate stakeholders did not have access to the planning table regardless of whether the education committee was American-led or Dominican-led. The third conclusion was that educational planning reproduced Dominican societal inequalities. INDEX WORDS: Adult education, Dominican Republic, postcolonial studies, planning theory, ethnographic case study, qualitative research, theological education, TEE, Evangelicals, missions, assimilation, functional philosophy of education, critical education, power, resistance, dependency, racism, hybridity, collusion, nationalism, and globalization THE IMPACT OF INTERCULTURAL FACTORS ON THE PLANNING OF THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC by JONATHAN S. PENLAND B.A., Toccoa Falls College, 1981 M.A., Columbia International University, 1987 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2004 © 2004 Jonathan S. Penland All Rights Reserved THE IMPACT OF INTERCULTURAL FACTORS ON THE PLANNING OF THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC by JONATHAN S. PENLAND Major Professor: Ronald M. Cervero Committee: Bradley C. Courtenay Talmadge C. Guy Helen C. Hall Sharan B. Merriam Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2004 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am thankful to my wife and family, faculty members of the School of World Missions, and the members of my committee. I am grateful that Toccoa Falls College invested in my education. I am humbled by the trust of my friends in the Dominican Republic. First, I want to thank my wife, Debbie, who has been a constant support throughout the past three years. I would not have reached this point without her patience and understanding. Micah and Julia Irvin, Jonathan Penland, Joseph Penland, Joel Penland, and Mrs. Sallie Penland have all worked hard to allow me to concentrate on my studies. Secondly, I want to thank my colleagues at the School of World Missions. Norman Allison, David Harvey, Joyce Griffin, Steve Irvin, and Fred Smith each encouraged me at significant points along the journey. Jarvis Crosby provided encouragement, critique, and good conversation during at least one hundred trips to Athens. I already miss the dialogue. Thirdly, I want to thank my major professor, Ronald M. Cervero. He challenged me to think critically and write with clarity and conviction. I also appreciate the investment that each member of my committee made in my academic and professional training. I am indebted to Toccoa Falls College for their financial support of my studies. I am indebted to my friends in the Dominican Republic who granted me permission to study their theological education program during this 16-month period. Finally, I give thanks to God who has been my source of strength. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ..............................................................................1 Problem and Purpose Statement................................................................................9 Significance.............................................................................................................11 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................................13 The Dominican Republic.........................................................................................14 Postcolonial Studies ................................................................................................47 Theological Frames .................................................................................................71 The Cervero and Wilson Planning Framework.......................................................77 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................86 Design of the Study .................................................................................................86 Sample Selection .....................................................................................................88 Data Collection........................................................................................................92 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................96 Validity and Reliability .........................................................................................100 Researcher Stance..................................................................................................105 vi 4 PARTICIPANTS AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT ............................109 The Partnership......................................................................................................109 The Program ..........................................................................................................122 Participants from the Executive Committee..........................................................126 Participants from the Field Leadership Team ......................................................131 Participants from the Education Committee ........................................................134 The Director of the Bible Institute .......................................................................146 The Coordinator of the Pastoral Seminar Program ..............................................148 TEE Practitioners .................................................................................................150 The Critical Incidents ............................................................................................155 Preliminary Analysis of the Critical Incidents ......................................................157 Summary ...............................................................................................................164 5 THE IMPACT OF INTERCULTURAL FACTORS ................................................167 The Intercultural Factors .......................................................................................168 The Impact of Intercultural Factors.......................................................................188 Summary ...............................................................................................................207 6 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS .............................................209 Study Summary .....................................................................................................209 Conclusions and Discussion..................................................................................212 Implications for Adult Education Practice and Research......................................220 Concluding Note....................................................................................................226